- (1.) HEARD Sri Kunwar Ram Chandra Singh, learned counsel for the petitioners.
(2.) THE writ petition is directed against two orders both dated 6.7.2012 rejecting petitioners' applications for amendment of the plaint and for additional evidence filed at the appellate stage. Petitioner/plaintiffs had filed a suit in the year 1988 for partition and possession of the suit property. The suit was dismissed in the year 2011 whereupon the present appeal 127 of 2011 was preferred. In appeal petitioners filed applications for amendment of the plaint as well as for additional evidence. The court below has rejected the amendment application on the ground that the amendment sought are not necessary, inasmuch as petitioners in the suit all through claimed to be the owner of the suit property and by the amendment they are only trying to explain how they have acquired ownership right. The manner of acquisition of the ownership right, if necessary, would be established by evidence. The amendment after decision of the suit, during the pendency of appeal and that too after such a long gap of time cannot be permitted.
(3.) THE application for additional evidence seeks to bring on record 13 documents. Certified copies of most of them have been obtained in May, 2012. The Court below has held that the petitioners have failed to explain as to when they acquired knowledge of the said documents and why aforesaid evidence could not be produced by them earlier. The scope of judicial review in writ jurisdiction under Article 226 or supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is discretionary and limited. It is not to correct the errors in the orders of the court below but to remove manifest and patent errors of law and jurisdiction, without acting as an appellate authority. No such case has been made out. In view of the aforesaid, it is not a fit case for interference in exercise of writ jurisdiction. Accordingly, writ petition is dismissed.;